Friday, February 14, 2014

Law Porn

"North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He'd made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.

"Devlin spotted him: a lone man in the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn't buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack [cocaine] in the guy's pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office." US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in dissent.

I write on this subject (as I have in the past) knowing that it will garner...oh, maybe...ten or fifteen readers. Most of them, I fear, can't believe what they are reading. I might ask a friend "So, did you read my latest?" The answer is usually a tepid "Sort of" which I generally take to mean "I started it but...c'mon, man!"

There is likely a "chicken, meet egg" thing about posts like this. Do I read law cases, especially Supreme Court cases, as recreation because I went to law school, or is it the other way around? Given the passage of time the consideration is moot, stale or di minimus depending on the argument. But, there I go again.

Law cases are fun! I recently clicked on Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. because I have a friend at work with the same last name. I found our hero Justices deep into the meanings of "changing" and "clothes" for the purpose of donning and doffing pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

No, really! It was fascinating, and contained a bit of tastiness beside the obvious. (Not obvious? Ouch.). The decision was a clear 9-0, except that Justice Sotomayor didn't join in footnote 7. Footnote 7?! Well, let's see what mayhem the Court tried to slip past her. Something about exemptions being narrowly construed against the employer trying to assert them. Okay, Sonia. Be that way.

A case announced recently contained the following line in the written opinion by a Federal judge - "Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us." What?! (That comes, of course, from the Declaration of Independence).Aviation cases are always fun, so how about Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v Hoeper. 'Kay, a pilot has trouble learning a new aircraft so he can still fly out of Denver. They give him four chances to qualify, and he fails three of them. On the fourth (and evidently final) try the simulator tells him the engines have quit due to fuel starvation. He screams at the simulator instructor and storms out, getting on a plane home. Oh...did I mention he's part of a program allowing pilots to carry guns while they are flying the airplane? What do you think the company does.... Come on, this one's easy. Of course they detain him and search him. The gun, it turns out, is home. No harm no foul? Ha! The pilot sues for defamation and wins 1.2 MILLION DOLLARS. But wait....Would anyone want a guy who's pissed, cranky, probably just lost his job and...oh, yeah, might be armed, to get on a commercial aircraft without some kind of questions asked? The court decides - here is where it gets fun - that although it is theoretically possible to show "actual malice" with true statements that typically....Where did you stop reading?(Sigh).Okay, I'm done. The rest of the day is yours. I'm going to the recent 9th Circuit 2nd Amendment case where they found an individual right of "honest, law-abiding citizens" to carry firearms outside of their homes. Yes, that 9th Circuit. Not just brain candy - it's law porn.